Is there any one here who can clarify the power of the TI OMAP 24xx processor? What I mean is, how does it fair against competition like the Intel PXA270(624mHz) with it's integrated 2700G 16MB video processor?
A couple years back there was big hype over the release of the OMAP processor and how effecient(<1watt) and powerful(per clock) it was supposed to be over the Intel Xscale processors implemented in PDA's. Nowadays, I do not hear much about the OMAP processor, nor do I see it a common place in PDA's, is this another AMD vs. INTEL war(as in, AMD out performs, but Intel's market share still dominates)?
Why are we not seeing the OMAP 2's in more PDA's, especially if they are seemingly powerful(maybe even more powerful than Intel's offering..that's part of the question too)? They have dedicated video/graphic processors as well, and I believe they are even dual core(not sure on this one).
So...my "highly technical" question is: are OMAP2 processors relatively more powerful/efficient/better than the Intel PXA series?(go a head, get into engineering details about clock cycles and memory handling, I'd like to know, just like AMD's edge over Intel)
I tried to find a proper benchmark on google, but I couldn't quite find an appropriate one(I found one , but it was outdated, 2003, a TI processor that I'm not familar with spanked the competition, including Intel's offering). I'm just curious, and of course I'd rather get the better of the two products.
Ah, and one last thing, here's a link to some specs on the OMAP 2420 Processor, direct from Texas Instrument:
http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/w...templatedata/cm/product/data/omap_2420
edit: yeah, I just wanted to add: to a rather non-technical guy like me(not that impaired, but I certainly don't have a PHD in EE), the OMAP's specs sound rather impressive, but again, that's why I'm asking you guys, is it a more superior product all around to the Intel PXA?
A couple years back there was big hype over the release of the OMAP processor and how effecient(<1watt) and powerful(per clock) it was supposed to be over the Intel Xscale processors implemented in PDA's. Nowadays, I do not hear much about the OMAP processor, nor do I see it a common place in PDA's, is this another AMD vs. INTEL war(as in, AMD out performs, but Intel's market share still dominates)?
Why are we not seeing the OMAP 2's in more PDA's, especially if they are seemingly powerful(maybe even more powerful than Intel's offering..that's part of the question too)? They have dedicated video/graphic processors as well, and I believe they are even dual core(not sure on this one).
So...my "highly technical" question is: are OMAP2 processors relatively more powerful/efficient/better than the Intel PXA series?(go a head, get into engineering details about clock cycles and memory handling, I'd like to know, just like AMD's edge over Intel)
I tried to find a proper benchmark on google, but I couldn't quite find an appropriate one(I found one , but it was outdated, 2003, a TI processor that I'm not familar with spanked the competition, including Intel's offering). I'm just curious, and of course I'd rather get the better of the two products.
Ah, and one last thing, here's a link to some specs on the OMAP 2420 Processor, direct from Texas Instrument:
http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/w...templatedata/cm/product/data/omap_2420
edit: yeah, I just wanted to add: to a rather non-technical guy like me(not that impaired, but I certainly don't have a PHD in EE), the OMAP's specs sound rather impressive, but again, that's why I'm asking you guys, is it a more superior product all around to the Intel PXA?
